A motorist who sued the Government and the police, alleging breaches of his constitutional rights, false imprisonment, and seizure and detention of his motor vehicle following two run-ins with cops in 2024, has walked away empty-handed after a Supreme Court judge ruled that he had not proved a “civil wrong or breach of the Charter” of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

The man, Nigel Wilmot, who filed a constitutional claim, alleged that members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force breached his rights to liberty, freedom of movement, privacy, protection from search and protection of property.

He also sought declarations that the police breached his rights under the charter, and asked for constitutional damages for those alleged breaches.

He simultaneously filed civil claims seeking damages for false imprisonment, detinue and conversion, recovery of the towing and storage charges, and damages for loss of use of the Mazda motorcar in question, and “embarrassment” he felt.

Wilmot’s troubles began in March 2024 during a traffic stop along Washington Boulevard in the Corporate Area. On that occasion a uniformed constable signalled him to stop.

According to Wilmot, the constable did not identify himself and did not initially explain the reason for the stop. He said he, however, produced his driver’s licence and the Mazda’s registration, fitness, and insurance documents at which point the cop quizzed him about the Mazda’s colour mismatch and instructed him to follow the police to the examination depot.

The Mazda had been wrapped in green with red streaks. However, its certificate of fitness described the colour as green, but the registration and licensing particulars described it as red.

The front registration plate was fitted at the extreme right of the vehicle when viewed from the front. On that day Wilmot was issued a ticket for operating a vehicle in breach of its licence conditions and permitted to leave.

A day later Wilmot was again driving west along Washington Boulevard in a line of traffic when a uniformed constable stepped into the road and signalled him to stop.

Wilmot said that he stopped in the middle lane, and insisted that he had committed no offence.

The motorist, who said he was directed to move left and pull over, stated that he pulled to the left but continued driving in the left lane at the speed limit because there was no safe place to stop, evventually turning into a gas station where he parked facing inwards.

According to Wilmot, several cops surrounded his car while he repeatedly asked why he had been stopped.

His evidence was that he was eventually told the police wanted to check his documents under the Road Traffic Act. He said that the policemen called him “silly and stupid” and referred to the Mazda as a race car.

He claimed that when he asked whether he was free to leave, he was told that he was under arrest.

The motorist said he was also threatened that he would be pulled from the Mazda and locked up unless he produced his documents.

Wilmot, who said he then called his attorney, shared that he was issued with four tickets on that day, including for operating the Mazda contrary to the terms and conditions of its motor vehicle licence for the colour mismatch.

According to Wilmot, who described himself as a mechanic, the vehicle was released to him towards the end of March, after he had paid just over $100,000 in various fees.

Under cross-examination the motorist admitted that “the Mazda appeared prominently green, its certificate of fitness described it as green, and that its registration and licensing particulars still described it as red”.

He admitted that though the colour had been changed, “those particulars had not yet been corrected”.

He further acknowledged that he had been stopped by a cop approximately three weeks earlier and explained that the colour had been changed but the documents had not yet been amended.

He said he was allowed to leave with a warning from the cop that the vehicle should be parked until the records were corrected. He later pleaded guilty to failing to obey the direction to pull left, and paid a $6,000 fine.

The three other tickets were later withdrawn by the clerk of courts. Ruling on the matter in late September, Justice Sonya Wint- Blair, in determining whether Wilmot’s right to liberty had been breached, said in her view “the constable acted with restraint, issued one ticket rather than two, and prepared a statement for court”.

“The demand to inspect the documents was reasonable and lawful, given the reason for the stop. The least intrusive measure was to issue one ticket rather than two, and to allow Mr Wilmot to drive away without seizing the vehicle.

The measure was proportionate, and the State has demonstrably justified the limitation on the right,” she said in further ruling that Wilmot’s claim for breach of the right to privacy and protection against search had also failed.

“There was no evidence of a threat to Mr Wilmot’s life or physical injury, or of any separate interference with his physical or psychological integrity beyond the detention and treatment already in evidence.

Those rights were therefore not engaged on the evidence,” Justice Wint-Blair ruled. Furthermore, she said even if Wilmot’s evidence that he was insulted, told he was under arrest, and threatened with being pulled from the Mazda and locked up unless he produced the documents was taken at its highest, “the restraint remained directed to the lawful traffic stop, and did not become excessive in duration, and there was no force or physical aspect to this encounter”.

Said Justice Wint-Blair: “Discourtesy and threats are unprofessional, and neither police nor civilians need to escalate what the law requires into unnecessary discourse.

As long as the police do not exceed the legal limits of their power under the Road Traffic Act, their actions that day do not convert the restraint of Mr Wilmot into false imprisonment as the detention was not unlawful.

“A complete restraint on these facts was lawful and proportionate. Section 14 was engaged on reasonable grounds and in accordance with fair procedures for investigating and preventing traffic violations.

There was neither false imprisonment nor an unjustified deprivation of liberty or freedom of the person as the State justified the restriction on the right,” the jurist stated further.

Pointing out that the previous warning and ticket did not secure compliance, Justice Wint-Blair said, “It is therefore reasonable to infer that the seizure was intended to prevent continued use of the Mazda while the mismatch remained unresolved.” She said the unresolved mismatch, the absence of evidence that the records were corrected, and the continued treatment of the Mazda as non-compliant, support the inference that the relevant requirements of the statute remained unsatisfied through to the release date of March 26, 2024.

“On that basis, and having regard to the statutory scheme, detention may reasonably be inferred to have remained legally justified up to that date… I thus conclude that the initial seizure was justified and that detention remained proportionate until 26 March 2024,” Justice Wint-Blair said.

As to his attempt to claim for the $12,000 paid to the wrecker and $14,400 to the Transport Authority for storage of the vehicle, the judge said while the payments are not disputed, Wilmot had not proved that “those payments resulted from an unlawful seizure, unlawful continued custody, or another legal wrong established in this case”.

“Those sums are therefore not recoverable as special damages,” she said.

As for his conversion claim, Justice Wint-Blair, noting that a successful finding would require the court to establish “an intentional dealing with another person’s property which is inconsistent with that person’s right to possess it” said, “There was no evidence that any State officer used, sold, altered, destroyed or claimed ownership of the Mazda.

“There was also no allegation that it was physically damaged. No intentional dealing with the Mazda inconsistent with Mr Wilmot’s right to possess it was proved.

The claim in conversion therefore fails,” she said, adding that, “the taking and continued detention of the Mazda engaged Mr Wilmot’s property rights, but the State justified that interference”.

“The constitutional property claim therefore fails,” she said, noting, “Mr Wilmot said that he was embarrassed because passing motorists appeared to photograph or record him and the Mazda. There was no evidence that the police arranged or encouraged any recording or publication.

Mr Wilmot’s embarrassment does not create a separate right to damages in the absence of a proved civil wrong or charter breach”.

“The court makes the following orders: Judgment is entered for the attorney general of Jamaica; the claim is dismissed; no order is made against the Jamaica Constabulary Force; there shall be no order as to costs,” Justice Wint-Blair ruled in disposing of the matter.